On 05/05/2017 21:35, David Matlack wrote:
>> The problem is that there is the tests have no comment explaining what is being tested.
>> For example in ept_access_test_paddr_read_only_ad_enabled they are all like this:
>>
>> EPT_VLT_RD unexpected
>> FAIL: x86/vmx_tests.c:2124: Expectation failed: (expected_qual) == (qual)
>> LHS: 0x000000000000008a - 0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'1000'1010 - 138
>> RHS: 0x000000000000008b - 0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'1000'1011 - 139
>> STACK: 4072ad 407a00 407acc 407be6 401a9c 403653 4002d2
>>
>> and it's not obvious what is the difference between them without looking at
>> the source. The problem is that, when only one of them is broken, it's not
>> clear which one it is. Please make sure that prefix push/pop is used
>> consistently around each subtest; it's okay to do it on top of these patches,
>> so I've placed them in the next branch of kvm-unit-tests.git.
>
> The stack trace identifies which test case failed. For example, in
> logs/vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_not_present_ad_enabled.log I see:
>
> EPT_VLT_RD unexpected
> FAIL: x86/vmx_tests.c:2124: Expectation failed: (expected_qual) == (qual)
> LHS: 0x0000000000000082 -
> 0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'1000'0010
> - 130
> RHS: 0x0000000000000083 -
> 0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'0000'1000'0011
> - 131
> STACK: 4072ad 407a00 407acc 407d09 401a9c 403653 4002d2
> 0x00000000004072ac: do_ept_violation at x86/vmx_tests.c:2124 (discriminator 1)
> diagnose_ept_violation_qual(expected_qual, qual);
> > TEST_EXPECT_EQ(expected_qual, qual);
>
> 0x00000000004079ff: ept_access_paddr at x86/vmx_tests.c:2252
> if (expect_violation)
> > do_ept_violation(/*leaf=*/true, op,
> expected_qual |
> EPT_VLT_LADDR_VLD, gpa);
> 0x0000000000407acb: ept_access_violation_paddr at x86/vmx_tests.c:2278
> {
> > ept_access_paddr(ept_access, pte_ad, op,
> /*expect_violation=*/true,
> expected_qual);
> 0x0000000000407d08: ept_access_test_paddr_not_present_ad_enabled at
> x86/vmx_tests.c:2690
> ept_access_violation_paddr(0, PT_AD_MASK, OP_WRITE, EPT_VLT_WR);
> > ept_access_violation_paddr(0, PT_AD_MASK, OP_EXEC, EPT_VLT_WR);
> }
> 0x0000000000401a9b: test_run at x86/vmx.c:1675
> if (test->v2)
> > test->v2();
> else
> 0x0000000000403652: main at x86/vmx.c:1857
> continue;
> > if (test_run(&vmx_tests[i]))
> goto exit;
> 0x00000000004002d1: start64 at x86/cstart64.S:210
> lea __environ(%rip), %rdx
> > call main
> mov %eax, %edi
>
> Does this work for you?
Certainly much better. :)
Paolo
>> In this case, in addition, the exit qualification comes straight from the
>> processor, so I think the failures are a testcase bug: "If such an access
>> causes an EPT violation, the processor sets both bit 0 and bit 1 of the
>> exit qualification", footnote 1 of table 27-7 "Exit Qualification for EPT
>> Violations".
>
> Agreed, good catch. I will send a patch to fix the tests.
>
>>
>> Paolo
>
